Ah, Firs. Firs appears to be Chekhov's use of the theme of madness. The old butler is a delightful character, apparently going senile in his old age and ranting to himself in the background. But this got me thinking. As the AP Essay we just did outlined, madness shows knowledge and truth. Can't we say this about our mad butler Firs? I think that he shows Chekhov's political views, of all things. On page 25, he calls the "Liberation" a "misfortune." This "Liberation" probably refers to Alexander II's freeing of the serfs in 1861, thereby damaging the reputation and honor of the upperclass. So can we say that Chekhov does not support what Alexander did? His actions were met with great discontent...
However, I think this play is still a satire of upperclass reluctance, as I said in another post. So, Chekhov does not like how things are in Russia, but recognizes the need to move on.- JHe-c Mar 1, 2008
I'm not sure if I think that Chekhov is using Firs as a tool to express his personal political views, but I do agree with JHe that Firs's opinions on this Liberation definitely do add to the satire of upperclass reluctance of the betterment of the lower class and the emergence of a middle class. On pg. 23, Firs says: "The peasants minded the masters, and the masters minded the peasants [before the Liberation], but now it's all higgledy-piggledy." He obivously doesn't like the intermingling of the former upper class and lower class.
Since we're on the topic of Firs, I also have a random question to pose: why does Gayef hate Firs so much? Of course, Gayef has his flaws, but I thought him to be an overall sensible and kind man---until he spoke to Firs. Whenever Firs talks, Gayef is always telling him to shut up and is always treating him like an annoying piece of gum stuck to the bottom of his shoe that he can't get rid of. Why does he treat Firs so badly? - lma-c Mar 2, 2008
It does seem to be a bit of a paradox. A man who claims that the peasants love him should not hate his servants. But he does not hate him because he is old or because he is a servant, because he venerates the one-hundred-year-old cabinet. "Your silent summons to profitable labour has never weakened in all these hundred years" (10). Rather, I think, JHe, that you picked up on the answer to this question already. Firs is a conservative old man, proud of the old ways. "The peasants minded the masters, and the masters minded the peasants, but now it's all higgledy-piggledy; you can't make head or tail of it." Gayef is a contemporary man, or at least so he claims. "I'm a good Liberal, a man of the eigties. People abuse the eighties..." (15). To him, perhaps, Firs is a blemish on his perfect liberal record. Since he won't be free, it appears as though Gayef is untrue to his statements. But I don't think Gayef is very sensible at all. He is a garrulous man who does not how or when to speak correctly.
As for Firs, it has struck me that he is almost a personification of the house. He is lost in the old ways. And, as he says on page 6, "My mistress has come home, at last. I've seen her. Now I'm ready to die. If Lopakhin gets his way, the return of the master signals the end of the house also, so I see a connection. Has anyone else noticed that?
Firs, Firs, Firs... I'm slightly confused, even now having finished the book. Why does Firs speak so lowly of the Liberation? Isn't he a servant? The Liberation would have represented hope for him in the future, yet he speaks horribly of it. I think that it does have to do with Firs being extremely conservative (as the unknown person before me noted). Firs dislikes change, even if it might benefit him. That's strange!! Could Chekhove mean Firs to represent a typical view of the Russian people? I know that almost no members of the upper or middle classes in Russia supported the Liberation. The serfs, of course, were happy about it, but as it turned out, their freedom changed their lives very little. I'm confused as to whom Firs represents. Does he represent an atypical serf who dreaded the Liberation? Or is he representing middle-class values disguised as a serf? Any further ideas? - Kho-c Mar 5, 2008
First of all, this is the second post by an anonymous person, and somebody should really take credit for it, or I will! Just kidding. :)
I think that Firs extends the satire of the play in his views about the Liberation. The upper and middle classes thought that the Liberation brought chaos, and probably assumed that the serfs didn't even want it. It's almost mocking the ways the upper class thought. Also, Firs is an example of the oppression, still believing that his freedom was not what he wanted. The end of the play makes a further mockery. Firs is so loyally devoted, not even wanting his freedom and calling the Liberation a misfortune. But the family forgets him! His loyalty is wasted on the upper class that he serves. - mmi-c Mar 5, 2008
I don't think that we can say that Firs's opinions are that of Chekhov, especially since Firs is forgotten and dies at the end of the play. That doesn't seem to be a statement I'd like to make about my own opinions, at least. In response to your confusion, Kho, I think that Firs speaks so low of the liberation because he's rather attached to the old ways. He's faithfully served the family his whole life, and knows nothing else. Remember, he was in his middle ages at the time of the Liberation, let alone at the time of the play. It's hard for him to change at that point. His death signifies the passing of the Old Guard in the lower class who believed that the old system was the better way of living.- NVa-c Mar 5, 2008
Yes, NVa, poor old Firs didn't know how be be anyone else but a servant. He was always concerned with whether or not Lopakhin had his warm coat on. Even moments before his death, he was worried about it. While everyone else is absorbed in their own problems and concerns, Firs is focused on others rather than himself. The higher classes were selfish, while Firs was unselfish. Because of this, all the other characters left Firs behind to die alone on account of their own self-seeking manners. "Life has gone by as if I'd never lived" (49). Firs died sad. But Firs couldn't help this. He was born a serf. He didn't have anywhere else to go. He was bitter about the Liberation because it didn't do him any good. He was already old, what was he supposed to do? We talked in class that perhaps his death was his real liberation. Maybe to finally be freed from captivity meant an end to his life. I think we are meant to feel sympathy for Firs and the lower class. Firs seemed helplessly stuck in a rut, and no one, including himself, could get him out. - KGa-c Mar 6, 2008
I share my thoughts with NVa...it is almost a world-wide fact that older people from traditional times are usually stuck in their ways. They frown upon change or anything that disturbs their simple and ordinary times. I think that this is the character of Firs. I wonder if Firs really did not like Liberation becuase he was comfortable with his "enslavement" or just becuase he had the ideal that that is the way the class system has always been and he doesn't want change. I think it could be both. If he were to be liberated the question is how would he get on? I think he may have asked himself that same question. If this is the case, can Chekhov really be using Firs to give an opinion? What would Chekhov be saying? Would he be saying that Liberation is not good becuase those who were content in their place in society would have a harder time after? I honestly do not know. But I do think Firs is just another character not really Chekhov's opinions.- JJa-c Mar 8, 2008
While I don't think that Chekhov is using Firs as an instrument to pass out political views, I do agree with the fact that he contains more knowledge than we can see on the surface. Throughout the play, I saw him as a character that was attached to the estate from the beginning. While the cherry orchard was chopped down and the estate was sold, I saw that he too, was being chopped down. It seemed to me that the symbolism which I thought was so present was completely oblivious to the other individuals in the story. The ignored him a majority of the time, and at most, when they did talk to him, it was brief and to the point. I also think that the hidden knowledge he possessed was also connected to his age. While he constantly talked about what happened in the past, it was a warning for those living in the present. - bzw-c Mar 9, 2008
I felt that Firs really made Lopakhin look bad. Not on purpose, just through his reminiscence and through his experience. I mean, he was so attached to the place, as was the whole family, and although they felt a little bit of resentment toward Lopakhin for suggesting the selling of the estate, they were always kind towards him. When Lopakhin eventually buys the whole estate, Firs is left behind, unsure if, since he was employed at the estate, whether he was part of the property or part of the family. It's such a sad thought! But it really makes Lopakhin look bad for snatching the estate out from under them. Firs lying down and dying at the end as Lopakhin pushes him out of the house was such a sad way to end the book, but I felt that that was part of Firs' purpose. - kco-c
Chekhov definatly uses firs to convey some kind of political theme, but I really don't think that he is mad. He is just set in his ways. The reason he calls the liberation a misfortune is because he is unwilling to accept change and doesn't like anything that changes the way things are. He is just about as sane as the rest of the characters in the play and can't be considered mad just because he is very strong willed. Firs represents the dying social class and the reluctance to embrace the new way of things, and Chekhov uses him to represent this social class that is on its way out.- jko-c Mar 10, 2008
I totally agree with jko that Firs is not actually mad, and I think that Chekhov is trying to make the point that it is extremely difficult for one to adjust one's mindset. The serfs were basically slaves since they couldn't move or even marry whomever they choose. Thus, this is how his mind developed; he grew up with the mindset that he could not leave and that is why I believe he is unable to in the end of book. I think that it was essential for Chekhov to leave Firs at the estate to die. They forgot about him just as serfdom was forgotten about, and he died just like serfdom died. - kva-c Mar 11, 2008
Ok another thing about Firs. This could be a little out there, but i was thinking about Firs and the breaking of the cable string. We know that Firs is reminded of the liberation and how he does not like it very much, but the sound is heard again at the end along with the chopping of the orchard. I was thinking that Firs and the noise AND the orchard are all related. Firs is a symbol of the serfdom and past. When the noises occur it is also a part of him breaking almost. Without his work where would he be? And his work and his life were with that cherry orchard. The cable breaking is his job disappearing and the chopping is his purpose disappearing. He dies along with the death of his purpose. I thought this noise was so symbolic I got pretty excited.- JJa-c Mar 11, 2008
Well lma, I think that Gayef gets very short with Firs because Firs is a physical embodiment of the prior wealth and prosperity of the estate. Now that the times are changing and the estate is going under, I don't think that Gayef can stand to be around Firs because he just stands for everything that Gayef really wants but will never have again. Because of that Gayef becomes easily frustrated when he's around Firs and then takes it out on him. Firs in this play really is a rather unwanted symbol of the past, and in the end this could be the reason he is left behind, to forget the past and let it die, and then shift focus to the present.- mka-c Mar 12, 2008
Yeah, he's got some insight though. Remember what he says about the time before the liberation? At least the masters cared for their serfs, and vice versa back then. That's what C's trying to get accross. Firs is an awesome old butler though, I love the guy. He's the entire opposite of all the other characters in the play, because he's the one character that's actually really, and entirely attached to the estate that they might lose, and the only one who would really have difficulty being gone from the place. Madame R might say she's pretty much tied to the place, but I don't think her words are really as true as the come across as being. I think that Firs proves that he's the only one bound to it the way he ends up there in the end. I mean, he's locked into it and abandoned while the others forget about the place and move on, because he's incapable of being anywhere else. And he's a good servant the meantime, showing what people should be like, not 'freed' but acting nastily as Yasha does. - AZU-C Mar 13, 2008
I don't think that Firs is mad in the slightest instead I think that instead he is just a representation of the old ways that are dying out. First off his age, senality, and sickness shows how even though the old ways are still there they won't be there for long which represents the sense of change that was coming into Russia at the time. Secondly he is the only one who seems to remeber the old days and revere them as the best solution throughout the enitre book. Thirdly and what I think is probably the most important is the way in which he dies shows exactly how Checkof viewed how the old ways of Russia would be dying off. The timeing of it, at the exact moment when an old style aristocratical family is forced to move from their homes as the new forces in Russia take over, shows how intricately the old ways are tied with the aristocrats and when the aristocrats are gone so will be the old ways. Also the way he dies, he is not struck down or killed but rather mearly forgotten. Those who cared for him thought that someone else was going to care for him and the one whoo didn't care for him told him that he was fine even though he probably knew that he was not. This is indicative of how in a population after time people forget how things are done and those who want change say that the old ways will do just fine in the change when in reality they dont give a darn about the old ways and will just let them lie. It is the people's forgetfulness that will sooner or later kill off the old ways and that is exactly what happens to Firs. - DGr-c
I wrote my character analysis on Firs and that was because he was one of my favorite characters, from the beginning. He was a source of humor for me. He was this old senile servant. But, he was a character that provided a lot of insight. He was just an example of the situation of servants in Russia, just members of the lower class in general. He was a servant, born a servant, died a servant. He lived for serving the Ranevskys and when they left the house, he started to fall apart. He waited for them to get back and once they did he was "ready to die." - MFi-c Mar 13, 2008----
I wrote my character analysis on Firs as well. I have to say that I liked his comic relief for the play. His random outbursts and the family shutting him down was sad to see, but at the same time I found it humorous how the family was always like whatever, it's just Firs. Firs was quite the character. One of the toughest things he had to deal with was change. He yearned for the old Russia. The one where everyone had there place in society and everyone obeyed these rules. He is extremely unhappy about the serfs being jumbled up with the upper classes. He seemed to have a strong connection to the past. But that is explainable. He was born a serf and that was all he ever knew. Then one day the world he was ripped apart. Going through a drastic change like that would be tough on anyone. At the same time though one would think that he would be happy that his life as a servant was over. This is what I found most odd about Firs: that he wanted to cling to a past that didn't treat him well.- aja-c Mar 13, 2008
However, I think this play is still a satire of upperclass reluctance, as I said in another post. So, Chekhov does not like how things are in Russia, but recognizes the need to move on.-
I'm not sure if I think that Chekhov is using Firs as a tool to express his personal political views, but I do agree with JHe that Firs's opinions on this Liberation definitely do add to the satire of upperclass reluctance of the betterment of the lower class and the emergence of a middle class. On pg. 23, Firs says: "The peasants minded the masters, and the masters minded the peasants [before the Liberation], but now it's all higgledy-piggledy." He obivously doesn't like the intermingling of the former upper class and lower class.
Since we're on the topic of Firs, I also have a random question to pose: why does Gayef hate Firs so much? Of course, Gayef has his flaws, but I thought him to be an overall sensible and kind man---until he spoke to Firs. Whenever Firs talks, Gayef is always telling him to shut up and is always treating him like an annoying piece of gum stuck to the bottom of his shoe that he can't get rid of. Why does he treat Firs so badly? -
It does seem to be a bit of a paradox. A man who claims that the peasants love him should not hate his servants. But he does not hate him because he is old or because he is a servant, because he venerates the one-hundred-year-old cabinet. "Your silent summons to profitable labour has never weakened in all these hundred years" (10). Rather, I think, JHe, that you picked up on the answer to this question already. Firs is a conservative old man, proud of the old ways. "The peasants minded the masters, and the masters minded the peasants, but now it's all higgledy-piggledy; you can't make head or tail of it." Gayef is a contemporary man, or at least so he claims. "I'm a good Liberal, a man of the eigties. People abuse the eighties..." (15). To him, perhaps, Firs is a blemish on his perfect liberal record. Since he won't be free, it appears as though Gayef is untrue to his statements. But I don't think Gayef is very sensible at all. He is a garrulous man who does not how or when to speak correctly.
As for Firs, it has struck me that he is almost a personification of the house. He is lost in the old ways. And, as he says on page 6, "My mistress has come home, at last. I've seen her. Now I'm ready to die. If Lopakhin gets his way, the return of the master signals the end of the house also, so I see a connection. Has anyone else noticed that?
Firs, Firs, Firs... I'm slightly confused, even now having finished the book. Why does Firs speak so lowly of the Liberation? Isn't he a servant? The Liberation would have represented hope for him in the future, yet he speaks horribly of it. I think that it does have to do with Firs being extremely conservative (as the unknown person before me noted). Firs dislikes change, even if it might benefit him. That's strange!! Could Chekhove mean Firs to represent a typical view of the Russian people? I know that almost no members of the upper or middle classes in Russia supported the Liberation. The serfs, of course, were happy about it, but as it turned out, their freedom changed their lives very little. I'm confused as to whom Firs represents. Does he represent an atypical serf who dreaded the Liberation? Or is he representing middle-class values disguised as a serf? Any further ideas? -
First of all, this is the second post by an anonymous person, and somebody should really take credit for it, or I will! Just kidding. :)
I think that Firs extends the satire of the play in his views about the Liberation. The upper and middle classes thought that the Liberation brought chaos, and probably assumed that the serfs didn't even want it. It's almost mocking the ways the upper class thought. Also, Firs is an example of the oppression, still believing that his freedom was not what he wanted. The end of the play makes a further mockery. Firs is so loyally devoted, not even wanting his freedom and calling the Liberation a misfortune. But the family forgets him! His loyalty is wasted on the upper class that he serves. -
I don't think that we can say that Firs's opinions are that of Chekhov, especially since Firs is forgotten and dies at the end of the play. That doesn't seem to be a statement I'd like to make about my own opinions, at least. In response to your confusion, Kho, I think that Firs speaks so low of the liberation because he's rather attached to the old ways. He's faithfully served the family his whole life, and knows nothing else. Remember, he was in his middle ages at the time of the Liberation, let alone at the time of the play. It's hard for him to change at that point. His death signifies the passing of the Old Guard in the lower class who believed that the old system was the better way of living.-
Yes, NVa, poor old Firs didn't know how be be anyone else but a servant. He was always concerned with whether or not Lopakhin had his warm coat on. Even moments before his death, he was worried about it. While everyone else is absorbed in their own problems and concerns, Firs is focused on others rather than himself. The higher classes were selfish, while Firs was unselfish. Because of this, all the other characters left Firs behind to die alone on account of their own self-seeking manners. "Life has gone by as if I'd never lived" (49). Firs died sad. But Firs couldn't help this. He was born a serf. He didn't have anywhere else to go. He was bitter about the Liberation because it didn't do him any good. He was already old, what was he supposed to do? We talked in class that perhaps his death was his real liberation. Maybe to finally be freed from captivity meant an end to his life. I think we are meant to feel sympathy for Firs and the lower class. Firs seemed helplessly stuck in a rut, and no one, including himself, could get him out.
-
I share my thoughts with NVa...it is almost a world-wide fact that older people from traditional times are usually stuck in their ways. They frown upon change or anything that disturbs their simple and ordinary times. I think that this is the character of Firs. I wonder if Firs really did not like Liberation becuase he was comfortable with his "enslavement" or just becuase he had the ideal that that is the way the class system has always been and he doesn't want change. I think it could be both. If he were to be liberated the question is how would he get on? I think he may have asked himself that same question. If this is the case, can Chekhov really be using Firs to give an opinion? What would Chekhov be saying? Would he be saying that Liberation is not good becuase those who were content in their place in society would have a harder time after? I honestly do not know. But I do think Firs is just another character not really Chekhov's opinions.-
While I don't think that Chekhov is using Firs as an instrument to pass out political views, I do agree with the fact that he contains more knowledge than we can see on the surface. Throughout the play, I saw him as a character that was attached to the estate from the beginning. While the cherry orchard was chopped down and the estate was sold, I saw that he too, was being chopped down. It seemed to me that the symbolism which I thought was so present was completely oblivious to the other individuals in the story. The ignored him a majority of the time, and at most, when they did talk to him, it was brief and to the point. I also think that the hidden knowledge he possessed was also connected to his age. While he constantly talked about what happened in the past, it was a warning for those living in the present. -
I felt that Firs really made Lopakhin look bad. Not on purpose, just through his reminiscence and through his experience. I mean, he was so attached to the place, as was the whole family, and although they felt a little bit of resentment toward Lopakhin for suggesting the selling of the estate, they were always kind towards him. When Lopakhin eventually buys the whole estate, Firs is left behind, unsure if, since he was employed at the estate, whether he was part of the property or part of the family. It's such a sad thought! But it really makes Lopakhin look bad for snatching the estate out from under them. Firs lying down and dying at the end as Lopakhin pushes him out of the house was such a sad way to end the book, but I felt that that was part of Firs' purpose. -
Chekhov definatly uses firs to convey some kind of political theme, but I really don't think that he is mad. He is just set in his ways. The reason he calls the liberation a misfortune is because he is unwilling to accept change and doesn't like anything that changes the way things are. He is just about as sane as the rest of the characters in the play and can't be considered mad just because he is very strong willed. Firs represents the dying social class and the reluctance to embrace the new way of things, and Chekhov uses him to represent this social class that is on its way out.-
I totally agree with jko that Firs is not actually mad, and I think that Chekhov is trying to make the point that it is extremely difficult for one to adjust one's mindset. The serfs were basically slaves since they couldn't move or even marry whomever they choose. Thus, this is how his mind developed; he grew up with the mindset that he could not leave and that is why I believe he is unable to in the end of book. I think that it was essential for Chekhov to leave Firs at the estate to die. They forgot about him just as serfdom was forgotten about, and he died just like serfdom died.
-
Ok another thing about Firs. This could be a little out there, but i was thinking about Firs and the breaking of the cable string. We know that Firs is reminded of the liberation and how he does not like it very much, but the sound is heard again at the end along with the chopping of the orchard. I was thinking that Firs and the noise AND the orchard are all related. Firs is a symbol of the serfdom and past. When the noises occur it is also a part of him breaking almost. Without his work where would he be? And his work and his life were with that cherry orchard. The cable breaking is his job disappearing and the chopping is his purpose disappearing. He dies along with the death of his purpose. I thought this noise was so symbolic I got pretty excited.-
Well lma, I think that Gayef gets very short with Firs because Firs is a physical embodiment of the prior wealth and prosperity of the estate. Now that the times are changing and the estate is going under, I don't think that Gayef can stand to be around Firs because he just stands for everything that Gayef really wants but will never have again. Because of that Gayef becomes easily frustrated when he's around Firs and then takes it out on him. Firs in this play really is a rather unwanted symbol of the past, and in the end this could be the reason he is left behind, to forget the past and let it die, and then shift focus to the present.-
Yeah, he's got some insight though. Remember what he says about the time before the liberation? At least the masters cared for their serfs, and vice versa back then. That's what C's trying to get accross. Firs is an awesome old butler though, I love the guy. He's the entire opposite of all the other characters in the play, because he's the one character that's actually really, and entirely attached to the estate that they might lose, and the only one who would really have difficulty being gone from the place. Madame R might say she's pretty much tied to the place, but I don't think her words are really as true as the come across as being. I think that Firs proves that he's the only one bound to it the way he ends up there in the end. I mean, he's locked into it and abandoned while the others forget about the place and move on, because he's incapable of being anywhere else. And he's a good servant the meantime, showing what people should be like, not 'freed' but acting nastily as Yasha does. -
I don't think that Firs is mad in the slightest instead I think that instead he is just a representation of the old ways that are dying out. First off his age, senality, and sickness shows how even though the old ways are still there they won't be there for long which represents the sense of change that was coming into Russia at the time. Secondly he is the only one who seems to remeber the old days and revere them as the best solution throughout the enitre book. Thirdly and what I think is probably the most important is the way in which he dies shows exactly how Checkof viewed how the old ways of Russia would be dying off. The timeing of it, at the exact moment when an old style aristocratical family is forced to move from their homes as the new forces in Russia take over, shows how intricately the old ways are tied with the aristocrats and when the aristocrats are gone so will be the old ways. Also the way he dies, he is not struck down or killed but rather mearly forgotten. Those who cared for him thought that someone else was going to care for him and the one whoo didn't care for him told him that he was fine even though he probably knew that he was not. This is indicative of how in a population after time people forget how things are done and those who want change say that the old ways will do just fine in the change when in reality they dont give a darn about the old ways and will just let them lie. It is the people's forgetfulness that will sooner or later kill off the old ways and that is exactly what happens to Firs.
-
I wrote my character analysis on Firs and that was because he was one of my favorite characters, from the beginning. He was a source of humor for me. He was this old senile servant. But, he was a character that provided a lot of insight. He was just an example of the situation of servants in Russia, just members of the lower class in general. He was a servant, born a servant, died a servant. He lived for serving the Ranevskys and when they left the house, he started to fall apart. He waited for them to get back and once they did he was "ready to die."
-
I wrote my character analysis on Firs as well. I have to say that I liked his comic relief for the play. His random outbursts and the family shutting him down was sad to see, but at the same time I found it humorous how the family was always like whatever, it's just Firs. Firs was quite the character. One of the toughest things he had to deal with was change. He yearned for the old Russia. The one where everyone had there place in society and everyone obeyed these rules. He is extremely unhappy about the serfs being jumbled up with the upper classes. He seemed to have a strong connection to the past. But that is explainable. He was born a serf and that was all he ever knew. Then one day the world he was ripped apart. Going through a drastic change like that would be tough on anyone. At the same time though one would think that he would be happy that his life as a servant was over. This is what I found most odd about Firs: that he wanted to cling to a past that didn't treat him well.-